You can't really have a variant for something that's never been isolated , but you can have a test PCR at 45 cycles will turn pure water into some false positives
https://odysee.com/@katie.su:7/kateinterviewsstefan3:a
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3.pdf
This is the original paper on the discovery of the new 'virus ' it simply describes aligning short sequences of RNA to look like a longer one
Data processing and identification of the viral agent
Sequencing reads were first adaptor and quality trimmed using the
Trimmomatic program32. The remaining 56,565,928 reads were assembled de novo using both Megahit (v.1.1.3)9
and Trinity (v.2.5.1)33 with
default parameter settings. Megahit generated a total of 384,096 assembled contigs (size range of 200–30,474 nt), whereas Trinity generated
1,329,960 contigs with a size range of
201–11,760 nt.
Trinity results debunk the whole thing
Spike protein was invented not seen
Analysis of the RBD domain of the spike protein of WHCV
An amino acid sequence alignment of RBD sequences from WHCV,
SARS-CoVs and bat SARS-like CoVs was performed using MUSCLE41.
The predicted protein structures of the RBD of the spike protein were
estimated based on target–template alignment using ProMod3
the longest
(30,474 nucleotides (nt)) had a high abundance and was closely related
to a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate—bat SL-CoVZC45 (GenBank
accession number MG772933)—that had previously been sampled in
China, with a nucleotide identity of 89.1%
The bat coronavirus was also insilico ( invented on a computer from short sequences ) and was 89% similar to the reconstructed short sequences found in lung fluid , this is about as similar from a human to a cat .
The main thing missing from all of these papers are control experiments , none of them are scientific.